State v. Freddy Carrell ( 2010 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
FILED
AT KNOXVILLE August 9, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
MAY 1999 SESSION Appellate C ourt
Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, * C.C.A. # 03C01-9807-CC-00258
Appellee, * Blount County
VS. * Honorable D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., Judge
FREDDIE CARRELL, * (Probation Revocation)
Appellant. *
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
JULIE A. MARTIN PAUL G. SUMMERS
P.O. Box 426 Attorney General & Reporter
Knoxville, TN 37901-0426
GEORGIA BLYTHE FELNER
RAYMOND MACK GARNER Counsel for the State
District Public Defender 425 Fifth Avenue North
419 High Street Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Maryville, TN 37804
MICHAEL L. FLYNN
District Attorney General
PHILIP H. MORTON
Assistant District Attorney General
363 Court Street
Maryville, TN 37804-5906
OPINION FILED: _______________
AFFIRMED - RULE 20
JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS,
Judge
OPINION
The defendant, Freddie Carrell, appeals the revocation of his probation,
arguing that the trial court abused its discretion. We AFFIRM the judgment of
the trial court.
On February 9, 1994, the defendant pleaded guilty to two felony drug
offenses. On May 6, 1997, the trial court sentenced him to two years probation
for each offense, with the sentences to run concurrently. Shortly thereafter, the
defendant admitted to numerous violations of his probation. The trial court
revoked his probation and ordered that he serve the remainder of his sentence in
jail. Nevertheless, the defendant was released from jail and returned to
probation on April 17, 1998.
Following his release, the defendant requested that his probation be
transferred to Florida, and he moved there. Approximately six weeks later, the
defendant requested that he be transferred back to Tennessee. The defendant
failed to report to his probation officer as scheduled upon returning to Tennessee
and failed to attend two subsequent meetings. As a result, a probation violation
warrant was filed on June 17, 1998. Following a hearing, the trial court found
that the defendant had violated the terms of his probation by not reporting and
ordered that the defendant serve the remainder of his sentences in the
Tennessee Department of Correction.
The defendant admits violating the terms of his probation. However, due
to car problems and other circumstances, he argues that he did the best that he
could.
The decision whether to revoke a defendant’s probation is vested in the
discretion of the trial court. See State v. Leach, 914 S.W.2d 104, 106 (Tenn.
-2-
Crim. App. 1995). This Court will not disturb a trial court’s judgment relative to
probation revocation proceedings absent an abuse of that discretion. See id.
For this Court to find that the trial court abused its discretion, it must be
established that the record contains no substantial evidence in support of the
trial court’s conclusion. See State v. Harkins, 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (1991). Such
is not the case here.
The evidence supports the findings of the trial court, and we find no error
of law mandating reversal. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 20 of the Court of
Criminal Appeals, we AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.
_____________________________
JOHN EVERETT W ILLIAMS, Judge
CONCUR:
_______________________________
JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., Judge
________________________________
ALAN E. GLENN, Judge
-3-